Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs phi-3-medium 14B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 3 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 27.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 93.9% for Claude Opus 5 and 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B.
- phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 121.23 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 27.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | — |
| LMArena French | 1519 | — |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than phi-3-medium 14B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and phi-3-medium 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.